Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUTU v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 13+5, Art. 13+8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13+5 Violation of Art. 13+8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 20289/02

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim (see the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1775, § 28; and Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 20289/02

  As regards the complaint about the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence, the Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention requires, inter alia, that when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused (see, among other authorities, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 77).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 20289/02

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim (see the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1775, § 28; and Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 20289/02

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 20289/02

  The Court must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV, and Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 74, 25 October 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38281/08

  [ENG]

  The Court has already found that "in accordance with Articles 93, 96 and 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no investigative measures at all could be taken in respect of the offence allegedly committed... unless criminal proceedings were formally instituted" (see Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 22.02.2018 - C-59/17

  SCI Château du Grand Bois - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Landwirtschaft - …

  {FN:32} Vgl. entsprechend z. B. Urteil des EGMR vom 7. Juni 2007, Guţu/Moldau (CE:ECHR:2007:0607JUD002028902, Rn. 65), in dem festgestellt wurde, dass das unerlaubte Betreten des Grundstücks der Beschwerdeführerin - ihres Vorgartens - einen Eingriff in ihr Recht auf Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung darstellt.
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  [ENG]

  The Court further reiterates that an interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim (see, as a recent authority, Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 65, 7 June 2007).

• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 59474/11

  BALAKIN AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 22 OTHER CASES

  20289/02.
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 42440/06

  MUSUC CONTRE MOLDOVA ET 4 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Recalling further that the case Guţu v. Republic of Moldova (Application No. 20289/02), which concerns in part the lack of an effective remedy to claim compensation for illegal detention and for the violation of the right to respect for her home, will continue to be examined in the framework of the Sarban v. Republic of Moldova group;.
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 24129/11

  RADU AND RADU-CIUPERCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court also notes that in accordance with domestic law the failure to launch a criminal investigation limits the latter's effectiveness in terms of admissibility in court of any evidence obtained (see, for instance, Guţu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007; Ipate v. Moldova, no. 23750/07, § 63, 21 June 2011; and Taraburca, cited above, § 57).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  [ENG]

  In this connection the Court reiterates its finding that "in accordance with Articles 93, 96 and 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no investigative measures at all could be taken in respect of the offence allegedly committed [...] unless criminal proceedings were formally instituted..." (see, mutatis mutandis, Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  VASILCA v. MOLDOVA

  In this case, the applicant had a strong and legitimate interest in the conduct of the investigation which would have been served by granting her the special status under the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 21 above; see also Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007 and Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, § 90, 2 November 2010 concerning the procedural shortcomings where no proper criminal investigation is initiated).
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 7232/07

  CIORAP v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In this connection the Court reiterates that it has already found that "in accordance with Articles 93, 96 and 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no investigative measures at all could be taken in respect of the offence allegedly committed... unless criminal proceedings were formally instituted" (see Guţu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007; Mătăsaru and Saviţchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 25 and 90, 2 November 2010; and Gasanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 39441/09, § 53, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 39441/09

  [ENG]

  The Court has already found that "in accordance with Articles 93, 96 and 109 of the [Moldovan] Code of Criminal Procedure, no investigative measures at all could be taken in respect of the offence allegedly committed... unless criminal proceedings were formally instituted" (see Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007, and Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, § 90, 2 November 2010, including the domestic court's decision cited in that paragraph confirming the above conclusion).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 18919/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 4936/12

  TOMAC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 18521/13

  DUCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 7816/13

  MAIER v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 53918/11

  VELESCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 72238/14

  COTEÈš v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47804/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 23750/07

  IPATE v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  SIDOROVA (ADUKEVICH) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 547/02

  JERONOVICS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 6303/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42158/06

  GOLOB v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 24251/07

  CARCEA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 37233/07

  [ENG]